After all we know about Benghazi, after all the Congressional testimony where the, "hateful anti-Islam video" was never mentioned, after the murdered Christopher Stevens never mentioned a video in any of his correspondence with anyone, at any time in the State Department or with anyone else, the New York Times has the audacity to bring this up again and say that, "...contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it [the consulate attack] was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam."

There was absolutely no concern of a "hateful video" until Hillary and Obama needed a cover and then that was proven to be a completely false reason for the attack. The Times article also makes the ridiculous claim that Al Qaeda was not involved in the attack. No, the group responsible for the attack did not go by the name Al Qaeda, but even CNN, just 2 days after the attack knew it was an Al Qaeda linked group which was responsible.

Really, if this is what the New York Times is going to claim, it is pretty evident that Hillary will be a serious contender for President in 2016 and she needs her image cleaned up. Let the propaganda begin.

A BOYISH-LOOKING AMERICAN DIPLOMAT was meeting for the first time with the Islamist leaders of eastern Libya’s most formidable militias.

It was Sept. 9, 2012. Gathered on folding chairs in a banquet hall by the Mediterranean, the Libyans warned of rising threats against Americans from extremists in Benghazi. One militia leader, with a long beard and mismatched military fatigues, mentioned time in exile in Afghanistan. An American guard discreetly touched his gun.

The cable was a last token of months of American misunderstandings and misperceptions about Libya and especially Benghazi, many fostered by shadows of the earlier Sept. 11 attack. The United States waded deeply into post-Qaddafi Libya, hoping to build a beachhead against extremists, especially Al Qaeda. It believed it could draw a bright line between friends and enemies in Libya. But it ultimately lost its ambassador in an attack that involved both avowed opponents of the West and fighters belonging to militias that the Americans had taken for allies.

Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.